I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
This isn't a realistic outcome Sean for one very simple reason. Being in the Customs Union alone does not solve the issue of the Irish border in the eyes of the EU. The only way to solve that issue to their satisfaction is to be in the (or a) Customs Union and the Single Market. Which brings you back to Freedom of Movement which means, effectively, No Deal.
Corbyn's proposals do not solve anything.
I don't think Corbyn's proposals are meant to enable the ERG to support the deal.
I didn't say they were. But they are at least supposed to satisfy the EU as regards the Backstop - and they won't.
But Corbyn is suggesting changes to the Political Declaration, not changes to the Withdrawal Agreement. He recognises that the EU will still insist on a backstop.
I think the Labour BINO could be negotiated quickly. The WA stands and the PD is amended to reflect the new long term aspiration. I get the impression that the EU are only bothered at this point that we sign the WA. The PD can have the recipe for grandma's old peculiar in it for all they care.
That's sad news. I once played the lead role in Woyzeck and stabbed Marie to death with a knife that Finney had used in a production at the National Theatre a few months before.
If they wanted to back Farage they would have jumped ship long ago
It’s the Telegraph. It’s not a newspaper, it’s a Farage/ERG/Johnson cheersheet.
It's a fair article. They are merely quoting what one of the founders has said today. The headline has single quotes around the statement about thousands.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
This isn't a realistic outcome Sean for one very simple reason. Being in the Customs Union alone does not solve the issue of the Irish border in the eyes of the EU. The only way to solve that issue to their satisfaction is to be in the (or a) Customs Union and the Single Market. Which brings you back to Freedom of Movement which means, effectively, No Deal.
Corbyn's proposals do not solve anything.
I don't think Corbyn's proposals are meant to enable the ERG to support the deal.
I didn't say they were. But they are at least supposed to satisfy the EU as regards the Backstop - and they won't.
But Corbyn is suggesting changes to the Political Declaration, not changes to the Withdrawal Agreement. He recognises that the EU will still insist on a backstop.
I doubt that last but I'm sure you will remind me how/what.
In the meantime, we have a report out by some Jewish organisation which directly alludes to a connection between Jeremy Corbyn's antics and an increase in anti-semitic incidents. But as far as you are concerned, as "it's only 1 actual incident" (have you read the whole report? I haven't) it's not that important so you dismiss the whole thing.
Is "1 incident" your threshold for it to be ok for Jeremy Corbyn's antics to be linked to a rise in anti-semitic incidents?
It is one incident in that part you quoted to me earlier.
Aren’t you trying to bail out a leaky boat here. Corbyn is almost certainly anti-Semitic. He has been very careful to not be openly so, but he would be monumentally stupid if being a Labour MP since the 80s he had been openly so. He allows a culture of anti-semitism to thrive firstly. He won’t come out and say things have been wrong, but he is clearly of the worldview that Jews are a problem not Israel. Hence his support for the characterised money grabbing Jews mural. I’ve been looking at some of the Corbynites in Bristol as I come across them on Facebook - they don’t even try to hide their Jew hatred.
My wife is pretty apolitical and has been a Con-Lib Dem floating voter for the 12 years I’ve known her. Unlike me, I could see the circumstances where she might vote for Labour even under Corbyn. Recently during the BBC news she said that she’s fed up to the back teeth with all this anti-Semitism stuff. Without expressing which side of the debate she’s fed up with – she just thinks it’s totally irrelevant to the big issues facing the country and she’s totally right. I imagine she’s speaking for many non-politicos right now.
It may be irrelevant to issues like the cost of living etc.
But, as the estimable Mr Meeks has pointed out, the moral character of a nation does matter. It is not irrelevant to the sort of people we are. The fact that people don’t care about anti-semitism (whether in Labour or elsewhere) or other xenophobia normalises it and makes it easier for far worse things to happen. As we know from our European history. And it says nothing good about us as a people.
In the end, moral character is the only thing which matters - whether about individuals or groups.
I think the Labour BINO could be negotiated quickly. The WA stands and the PD is amended to reflect the new long term aspiration. I get the impression that the EU are only bothered at this point that we sign the WA. The PD can have the recipe for grandma's old peculiar in it for all they care.
Exactly. The Political Declaration isn't binding. Enshrining the principles in domestic law isn't binding. Corbyn isn't asking for anything binding, as far as I can see.
He's my MP. I have always perceived him as highly careerist, first, and soft left, second. He was a horribly PC DPP. He's also extremely wooden, and bad on TV, I'm not sure why Labourites see him as a saviour, apart from outright desperation.
I'll say it again, Thornberry is their best choice, on so many levels. She riles people, but the people she riles don't matter. I don't think core Labour voters in the North really care about her flag insult.
She's competent, she's smart, she's quite articulate, she's a woman (finally, a woman leader of Labour) she's got a decent backstory, she will appeal to centrists and Don't Knows, and the middle classes in the south, she is also just about leftwing enough to satisfy most Corbynites.
She's a Remainer who would push for, and accept, a very Soft Brexit.
I think if she were leading Labour they would be 10 points ahead.
If they were led by Ed Balls they would probably be 15-20 points ahead, but he would never be accepted by the lunatic membership.
Admit it Sean, you have the hots for her.
Don't encourage him - he already has.
Yes, I confessed my deviant desires for her Milfy charms a couple of days back. Apols for the image.
Er... She 3 years older than you. How can Milf be appropriate?
Is she?? She looks good for her age. Genuinely didn't know that. I'd have had her as late 40s, maybe 50.
I really am bewildered by my odd attraction to her. She is the opposite of my normal type, which is, happily, like my wife: young, elfin etc.
There must be some enormous German word coined by Freud for "someone unexpected you find sexually attractive for reasons you don't understand"
It's French, but doesn't "jolie laide" cover it?
Not really.
That is to do with looks rather than sex appeal. Thornberry has some life about her. I can imagine having a fun evening with her though not the type of evening @SeanT has imagined.
Fortunately, sex appeal has little to do with looks. And even more fortunately we don’t need to understand sexual attraction. We just feel it. And sometimes act on it.
Did you, Ms Cyclefree, have an entertaining luncheon?
Oh I know there's a hint of unicorn in Corbyn's Letter as well - e.g. having a say on Customs rules in the CU? Why would the EU give us that?
I imagine as No Deal looms so large the ultimate logic would be SM membership as well, and that would be added to the Starmer Brexit. Making it Norway Plus.
It's either that ot TMay's deal. I can't see the Commons allowing No Deal, in the end MPs will swarm behind one or the other, in panic.
The key is your last two words. The outcome will be decided in panic. That means the outcome is unusually uncertain since a solution might well be alighted on by large numbers of MPs barely thinking and reaching for the most superficially plausible way out.
Which is why I remain of the view that a fresh referendum is the single likeliest next step. It's an abdication of responsibility by MPs, but at least they don't have to be damned for eternity by signing up for something that they hate.
A referendum is political suicide for most MPs that vote for it. Plus, it is also very very risky, and it would probably be lost, meaning immediate No Deal Brexit.
The only referendum which might work is Deal v No Deal, And Deal would win easily. But Remainers will hate this. Would they/you suck it up?
Personally I think the deal should have been approved long ago.
The twin problems are that the interested parties have backed themselves into a non-fudgeable corner and the deal as it stands has zero legitimacy. If it is seen to have been rammed through at gunpoint, it will not be seen as a valid resolution. A fresh referendum will be unpopular with many, but MPs can at least justify it to their constituents on the basis "we couldn't choose so as a matter of democracy we let you choose". MPs who voted for a deal with zero legitimacy won't have even that figleaf.
As to your final point, why would you have a referendum between two options when a third option is much more popular than either? That really would be a democratic outrage.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
This isn't a realistic outcome Sean for one very simple reason. Being in the Customs Union alone does not solve the issue of the Irish border in the eyes of the EU. The only way to solve that issue to their satisfaction is to be in the (or a) Customs Union and the Single Market. Which brings you back to Freedom of Movement which means, effectively, No Deal.
Corbyn's proposals do not solve anything.
I don't think Corbyn's proposals are meant to enable the ERG to support the deal.
I didn't say they were. But they are at least supposed to satisfy the EU as regards the Backstop - and they won't.
But Corbyn is suggesting changes to the Political Declaration, not changes to the Withdrawal Agreement. He recognises that the EU will still insist on a backstop.
Which makes his whole argument pointless.
The point is he's saying Labour will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement if these conditions are met!
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
This isn't a realistic outcome Sean for one very simple reason. Being in the Customs Union alone does not solve the issue of the Irish border in the eyes of the EU. The only way to solve that issue to their satisfaction is to be in the (or a) Customs Union and the Single Market. Which brings you back to Freedom of Movement which means, effectively, No Deal.
Corbyn's proposals do not solve anything.
So doesn't that make the backstop the best possible achievable deal? The Irish border isn't a problem and "hostile environment" May gets the control of immigration she wants to satisfy the ~70% of the public opposed to immigration. The ERG really are monumental wreckers.
Yep. As it now stands if the EU won't move - and I see no reason why they should - then May's Deal really is the only way forward.
I meant a bit more than that. If you accept the three imperatives that Britain must exit the EU, because of the referendum, that Britain must ensure a soft border in Ireland, because of the Good Friday Agreement, and that Britain must end free movement, because that would be supported by a large majority of the country and would be the most visible evidence that the country really had left the EU - then there's not really any future trade agreement with the EU that would be better than the backstop. I don't think we even have to make any payments to the EU budget while in the backstop. It's no wonder the EU are so pissed off.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
I keep oscillating between this (see my Peel thread from Nov 2017, and my Customs Union one last month), which looks like the only way to anything like a stable Brexit, and a foreboding that a Starmer Brexit isn't on - at least, under a May govt, and that's the only one there is for now - because (1) there isn't time, (2) support in the Commons isn't strong enough to bind together long enough to pass an Implementation Bill, (3) the EU won't be keen on reopening the Deal, even for a closer Brexit, if it's going to take another 12+ months to negotiate, and (4) the 100+ Con MPs who would hate it could well bring her down in the interim, one way or another.
Still, I'll be looking in tomorrow's article at the probabilities for the four possible Brexit outcomes of May's Deal / Different Deal / No Deal / Remain. I've not written it yet so no numbers for now.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
This isn't a realistic outcome Sean for one very simple reason. Being in the Customs Union alone does not solve the issue of the Irish border in the eyes of the EU. The only way to solve that issue to their satisfaction is to be in the (or a) Customs Union and the Single Market. Which brings you back to Freedom of Movement which means, effectively, No Deal.
Corbyn's proposals do not solve anything.
I don't think Corbyn's proposals are meant to enable the ERG to support the deal.
I didn't say they were. But they are at least supposed to satisfy the EU as regards the Backstop - and they won't.
But Corbyn is suggesting changes to the Political Declaration, not changes to the Withdrawal Agreement. He recognises that the EU will still insist on a backstop.
Which makes his whole argument pointless.
Well, not if it provides him with a fig leaf to justify voting for the Withdrawal Agreement.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
I keep oscillating between this (see my Peel thread from Nov 2017, and my Customs Union one last month), which looks like the only way to anything like a stable Brexit, and a foreboding that a Starmer Brexit isn't on - at least, under a May govt, and that's the only one there is for now - because (1) there isn't time, (2) support in the Commons isn't strong enough to bind together long enough to pass an Implementation Bill, (3) the EU won't be keen on reopening the Deal, even for a closer Brexit, if it's going to take another 12+ months to negotiate, and (4) the 100+ Con MPs who would hate it could well bring her down in the interim, one way or another.
Still, I'll be looking in tomorrow's article at the probabilities for the four possible Brexit outcomes of May's Deal / Different Deal / No Deal / Remain. I've not written it yet so no numbers for now.
The strange thing is that none of those four outcomes would surprise me.
"Brexit party" conjures up images of patriotic bunting, vol au vents filled with unidentifiable paté, stale Cheddar and warm white wine.
Pate and cheddar are mostly foreign muck.
A true Brexit party would serve up patriotic foods, like faggots, leek puddings, tripe, and semolina, with Newcastle Brown Ale.
Newcastle Breweries obtained EU geographic recognition thingy-whatever for Newcastle Brown - then closed the brewery and moved production to Yorkshire.
"Brexit party" conjures up images of patriotic bunting, vol au vents filled with unidentifiable paté, stale Cheddar and warm white wine.
Pate and cheddar are mostly foreign muck.
A true Brexit party would serve up patriotic foods, like faggots, leek puddings, tripe, and semolina, with Newcastle Brown Ale.
Newcastle Breweries obtained EU geographic recognition thingy-whatever for Newcastle Brown - then closed the brewery and moved production to Yorkshire.
Looks like the answer is Blue Labour. Remember that?
I think Jezza, the man who helped a ISIS fundraiser get out of jail for Christmas and kept saying what we need to do is have a nice cup of tea with Assad and Putin to resolve out differences, might have to go on quite a journey to turn it up on harsher punishment for criminals and tighter immigration.
"Brexit party" conjures up images of patriotic bunting, vol au vents filled with unidentifiable paté, stale Cheddar and warm white wine.
Pate and cheddar are mostly foreign muck.
A true Brexit party would serve up patriotic foods, like faggots, leek puddings, tripe, and semolina, with Newcastle Brown Ale.
Newcastle Breweries obtained EU geographic recognition thingy-whatever for Newcastle Brown - then closed the brewery and moved production to Yorkshire.
Maybe they should drink Duvel instead?
I believe it is now brewed in Holland.
Used to drink a lot of it sixty years ago when a student up there. Tried it again a few years ago and it didn't taste the same at all.
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
"Brexit party" conjures up images of patriotic bunting, vol au vents filled with unidentifiable paté, stale Cheddar and warm white wine.
Pate and cheddar are mostly foreign muck.
A true Brexit party would serve up patriotic foods, like faggots, leek puddings, tripe, and semolina, with Newcastle Brown Ale.
Newcastle Breweries obtained EU geographic recognition thingy-whatever for Newcastle Brown - then closed the brewery and moved production to Yorkshire.
Maybe they should drink Duvel instead?
I believe it is now brewed in Holland.
Used to drink a lot of it sixty years ago when a student up there. Tried it again a few years ago and it didn't taste the same at all.
That might just you getting old ;-)
No, I think it is true. The big beverage companies supposedly spend a lot of time and money trying to replicate the water / other conditions when they move brewing to another site, but it wouldn't surprise me if at the end of the day it doesn't have the quite the same taste.
Looks like the answer is Blue Labour. Remember that?
I think Jezza, the man who helped a ISIS fundraiser get out of jail for Christmas and kept saying what we need to do is have a nice cup of tea with Assad and Putin to resolve out differences, might have to go on quite a journey to turn it up on harsher punishment for criminals and tighter immigration.
If only we had someone such as a former Director of Public Prosecutions who could take over the leadership...
Looks like the answer is Blue Labour. Remember that?
I think Jezza, the man who helped a ISIS fundraiser get out of jail for Christmas and kept saying what we need to do is have a nice cup of tea with Assad and Putin to resolve out differences, might have to go on quite a journey to turn it up on harsher punishment for criminals and tighter immigration.
If only we had someone such as a former Director of Public Prosecutions who could take over the leadership...
I am not sure he has the best record when it comes to tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
I reckon this is what might break her. She cares deeply about splitting the Tory party, but she clearly cares even more about protecting the union. She bangs on and on about it. So. If it's March 25 and her Deal is still dead, she will move. My guess is she will order her party to unite around the Corbyn letter, as that would command Labour support, and therefore pass the Commons.
She would do this knowing that 100 or more of her MPs would oppose, and potentially split forever. But she would do it. A Starmer Brexit.
I keep oscillating between this (see my Peel thread from Nov 2017, and my Customs Union one last month), which looks like the only way to anything like a stable Brexit, and a foreboding that a Starmer Brexit isn't on - at least, under a May govt, and that's the only one there is for now - because (1) there isn't time, (2) support in the Commons isn't strong enough to bind together long enough to pass an Implementation Bill, (3) the EU won't be keen on reopening the Deal, even for a closer Brexit, if it's going to take another 12+ months to negotiate, and (4) the 100+ Con MPs who would hate it could well bring her down in the interim, one way or another.
Still, I'll be looking in tomorrow's article at the probabilities for the four possible Brexit outcomes of May's Deal / Different Deal / No Deal / Remain. I've not written it yet so no numbers for now.
The strange thing is that none of those four outcomes would surprise me.
That's what is so remarkable. 49 days to go and we still haven't a clue how things will play out - I suspect a different deal isn't on the table but any of the others are equally possible...
"Brexit party" conjures up images of patriotic bunting, vol au vents filled with unidentifiable paté, stale Cheddar and warm white wine.
Pate and cheddar are mostly foreign muck.
A true Brexit party would serve up patriotic foods, like faggots, leek puddings, tripe, and semolina, with Newcastle Brown Ale.
Newcastle Breweries obtained EU geographic recognition thingy-whatever for Newcastle Brown - then closed the brewery and moved production to Yorkshire.
Maybe they should drink Duvel instead?
I believe it is now brewed in Holland.
Used to drink a lot of it sixty years ago when a student up there. Tried it again a few years ago and it didn't taste the same at all.
They had to change the recipe on health reasons. Caramel was used to give the brown colour now it is roasted barley.
I doubt that last but I'm sure you will remind me how/what.
In the meantime, we have a report out by some Jewish organisation which directly alludes to a connection between Jeremy Corbyn's antics and an increase in anti-semitic incidents. But as far as you are concerned, as "it's only 1 actual incident" (have you read the whole report? I haven't) it's not that important so you dismiss the whole thing.
Is "1 incident" your threshold for it to be ok for Jeremy Corbyn's antics to be linked to a rise in anti-semitic incidents?
It is one incident in that part you quoted to me earlier.
Aren’t you trying to bail out a leaky boat here. Corbyn is almost certainly anti-Semitic. He has been very careful to not be openly so, but he would be monumentally stupid if being a Labour MP since the 80s he had been openly so. He allows a culture of anti-semitism to thrive firstly. He won’t come out and say things have been wrong, but he is clearly of the worldview that Jews are a problem not Israel. Hence his support for the characterised money grabbing Jews mural. I’ve been looking at some of the Corbynites in Bristol as I come across them on Facebook - they don’t even try to hide their Jew hatred.
My wife is pretty apolitical and has been a Con-Lib Dem floating voter for the 12 years I’ve known her. Unlike me, I could see the circumstances where she might vote for Labour even under Corbyn. Recently during the BBC news she said that she’s fed up to the back teeth with all this anti-Semitism stuff. Without expressing which side of the debate she’s fed up with – she just thinks it’s totally irrelevant to the big issues facing the country and she’s totally right. I imagine she’s speaking for many non-politicos right now.
It may be irrelevant to issues like the cost of living etc.
But, as the estimable Mr Meeks has pointed out, the moral character of a nation does matter. It is not irrelevant to the sort of people we are. The fact that people don’t care about anti-semitism (whether in Labour or elsewhere) or other xenophobia normalises it and makes it easier for far worse things to happen. As we know from our European history. And it says nothing good about us as a people.
In the end, moral character is the only thing which matters - whether about individuals or groups.
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
Absolutely
What about the sizeable minoritys who really fear the idea, fear for their values and culture? Isn’t accommodating minority’s views, values and culture important part of democracy too?
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
Absolutely
Well, for a start, a outcome like that in any of the other constituent nations of UK wouldn't lead to hundreds of dead men, women and children.
Exactly. The Political Declaration isn't binding. Enshrining the principles in domestic law isn't binding. Corbyn isn't asking for anything binding, as far as I can see.
I see this as first class politics from Labour. They know that May cannot and will not cave in and accept opposition policy on the biggest - the only - issue of the moment.
When this becomes clear she will look intransigent and partisan. Especially because noises off from the EU indicate that they would be delighted with this Labour BINO. Well why wouldn't they be? They are the EU. The all important Withdrawal Agreement unchanged, the Political Declaration amended for very close alignment, i.e. more compatible with the WA than it currently reads - ah bisto, as far as they are concerned.
Labour's timing is perfect too. Launching this now, into the end game, is more effective than having done it earlier. It gives May less time to adapt. It ratchets up the pressure on her. And what now are her options if at the end of the day she cannot get her deal through?
Allow a No Deal crash out when Labour had a feasible alternative? Oh dear.
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
Because it could VERY easily kick off The Troubles all over again. Indeed I suspect it would. This is why the Irish might want reunification in theory, but when pressed they admit they don't want it any time soon.
Equally Eire cannot afford to subsidise the NI economy to the extent the rest of the UK currently does. I suspect it wouldn't end well..
Exactly. The Political Declaration isn't binding. Enshrining the principles in domestic law isn't binding. Corbyn isn't asking for anything binding, as far as I can see.
I see this is first class politics from Labour. They know that May cannot and will not cave in and accept opposition policy on the biggest - the only - issue of the moment.
When this becomes clear she will look intransigent and partisan. Especially because noises off from the EU indicate that they would be delighted with this Labour BINO. Well why wouldn't they be? They are the EU. The all important Withdrawal Agreement unchanged, the Political Declaration amended for very close alignment, i.e. more compatible with the WA than it currently reads - ah bisto, as far as they are concerned.
Labour's timing is perfect too. Launching this now, into the end game, is more effective than having done it earlier. It gives May less time to adapt. It ratchets up the pressure on her. And what now are her options if at the end of the day she cannot get her deal through?
Allow a No Deal crash out when Labour had a feasible alternative? Oh dear.
So trying to get rid of “the disruptive Zionist” is okay?
How’s about “the disruptive ni***r”, said of a black MP?
I don't think that comparison quite works.
'Yid' would perhaps be closer.
Zionist is clearly meant to be pejorative, when used of Jews outside Israel. Even worse is the truncation: Zio, which many Corbynites happily spew up, on a daily basis.
However, I agree it isn't as offensive as the N word. I'd maybe put it on a par with "negro", or "half caste" - i.e. not designed to be a boo-word, but now carries so many ugly connotations that you have to question the attitude of those who would use it.
Zionism is an ideology.
And there are people, even non Jews, happy to describe themselves as such. Perhaps the only similarity with the N word is that Zionists are the only people allowed to use the term.
Context matters, even the most uptight people on the word could see a scenario where you could ask a Jewish person if they are a Zionist (conversation went that way) without it being offensive
I can't quite see how you could do this with many of the racial insults mentioned here as comparisons.
Context matters. Would any PB-er randomly and casually call a Jewish man or woman a Zionist, just because they are Jewish, and without any evidence of this Jewish person supporting the specific ideology of Zionism?
No. Because, in that context, it is an insult, and it is designed to be insulting. It's code for Yid.
People are really stretching trying to pretend otherwise.
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
Comedy gold ! You seriously think the UK is ready for no deal .
What's the problem with having an Irish unity referendum? If the majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland that point of view ought to be respected.
It’s not just the vote on the Agreement that has to be put into the WAIB. Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill .
So more chance for more drama there . Many presume that if MPs vote through the deal that’s the end of it .
Yes, and some of us have been pointing this out for months now. Even if a single “meaningful” vote on a deal passes the Commons, there’s still a pile of primary legislation which needs to go through both Houses and is amendable in both, before that deal is formally ratified.
It’s also possible, that if for example the TM deal was passed tomorrow, the DUP would initiate and win a VoNC the following day, and after a couple of weeks we would be into an election which would mean we leave with no deal as we haven’t ratified the Treaty - and haven’t passed a whole load of mitigating legislation either - it would be a proposed crash out with a lot in limbo for potentially months...
By the way, do any of the people here who constantly complain about Vince Cable's crapness have any suggestions about what he should be doing differently?
What he is doing may not be the problem necessarily, he may just not be the person able to do it most effectively. In the same way May's instincts have not been entirely terrible, but she is still demonstrably inadequate at the job.
People do seem to be underestimating JC again. He's terrible, to be sure, but while certainty he will recover like last time is unwise, there are reasons to think his being terrible won't prove as problematic for Labour as people assume.
I was never clear why the FB is necessary, but I guess it is necessary to be explicit on twitter?
Originally it was created when there was big fuss about bot networks, so it was a way to try to create an organic pro-EU network to help amplify the other side, hence "follow back".
This YouGov article agrees with me. The most significant politician in the country with noticeable net approval ratings is Ruth Davidson. You have to look quite hard for any others.
She's popular in the same way Ken Clarke is - anodyne, middle of the road and doesn't offend the foaming mouthed Labour hordes as much as other Conservatives.
Could such a wet big government type ever lead the Con party ? Let's hope not.
Clarke was one of the best chancellors this country had - and one of the best prime ministers we didn't. He still makes the Tory cabinet look like pygmies.
Clarke would have been most lefties choice for the Con leader.
His Europhilia however is bizarre - almost a cult like devotion.
On the other hand, unlike true fanatics like Grieve, posturing around pretending he is not the same as a Rees-Mogg, Clarke has retained some semblance of perspective even as he does not abandon his very Pro-EU views.
People do seem to be underestimating JC again. He's terrible, to be sure, but while certainty he will recover like last time is unwise, there are reasons to think his being terrible won't prove as problematic for Labour as people assume.
I have said for ages, he has lucked his way into being the candidate that people pin their own beliefs on (despite what he actually says).
Part of it is because there is a significant number of people in the developed world that the globalized economy is putting a lot of pressure on and leaders saying what we need is basically more of the same, as liberal global economy is the best model isn't what they want to hear.
Therefore, his well practised socialist shtick getting a hearing in a way it wouldn't 20 years ago when we were choosing between Blair and Major.
I was never clear why the FB is necessary, but I guess it is necessary to be explicit on twitter?
Originally it was created when there was big fuss about bot networks, so it was a way to try to create an organic pro-EU network to help amplify the other side, hence "follow back".
All I see is people creating an echo chamber - and the last thing we need is more people not listening to the opinions of people they may not agree with.
I don't know if we've already covered this, but I thought it was absolutely extraordinary that nearly a tenth of all recorded antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2018 were associated with the Labour Party:
I was never clear why the FB is necessary, but I guess it is necessary to be explicit on twitter?
Originally it was created when there was big fuss about bot networks, so it was a way to try to create an organic pro-EU network to help amplify the other side, hence "follow back".
It would make more sense if it stood for "Feck Brexit"
His defence of why he does this sort of thing still doesn't stack up given how much still has to happen to such things before they become law.
His defence doesn't stack up because he doesn't automatically object to all private member bills. If you are his mate he forgets to object and lets them through...
paints picture of two Lemmings going over a cliff.
The Irish Lemming is laughing and enjoying itself “the bastard English have gone over a cliff”
Here’s to the next 598 years of neighbourliness and Christian fraternity. Cheers
PS. Dr Naked Brexit has been parading her views of brexits, hope Humphries lady guests turning up starkers don’t change his mind ref retirement 🥴
The figures for preferring a United Ireland rather than no deal in the North are more significant. The opinion poll figures according to the new Sinn Fein leader were overwhelming though I can't remember the figures she quoted. Either way a deal breaker for May and bad news for her DUP chums
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
Comedy gold ! You seriously think the UK is ready for no deal .
Richard Tyndall is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf. That has got to be one of the most idiotic Brexiteer statements I have ever read, and the bar is well, either high or low depending on how you look at it!!
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
Yup. The one thing the EU are absolutely terrified of, more than any other outcome, is that a couple of years down the line the UK is seen to have made a success of a clean break.
And so the story dies again in a few days, until the next time it is a scandal which will surely bring down Corbyn and lead to splits, except where it won't.
People do seem to be underestimating JC again. He's terrible, to be sure, but while certainty he will recover like last time is unwise, there are reasons to think his being terrible won't prove as problematic for Labour as people assume.
I have said for ages, he has lucked his way into being the candidate that people pin their own beliefs on (despite what he actually says).
Part of it is because there is a significant number of people in the developed world that the globalized economy is putting a lot of pressure on and leaders saying what we need is basically more of the same, as liberal global economy is the best model isn't what they want to hear.
Therefore, his well practised socialist shtick getting a hearing in a way it wouldn't 20 years ago when we were choosing between Blair and Major.
It is also thecase that crap as Jezza is, even non-Corbynite Labour find him far preferrable to the even crapper May.
This YouGov article agrees with me. The most significant politician in the country with noticeable net approval ratings is Ruth Davidson. You have to look quite hard for any others.
She's popular in the same way Ken Clarke is - anodyne, middle of the road and doesn't offend the foaming mouthed Labour hordes as much as other Conservatives.
Could such a wet big government type ever lead the Con party ? Let's hope not.
Clarke was one of the best chancellors this country had - and one of the best prime ministers we didn't. He still makes the Tory cabinet look like pygmies.
Clarke would have been most lefties choice for the Con leader.
His Europhilia however is bizarre - almost a cult like devotion.
On the other hand, unlike true fanatics like Grieve, posturing around pretending he is not the same as a Rees-Mogg, Clarke has retained some semblance of perspective even as he does not abandon his very Pro-EU views.
Clarke is not a "Europhile", he is simply one of a breed of genuine One nation Conservatives who believe it is, on balance, Britain's patriotic duty to be at the heart of Europe. Grieve is not a "fanatic" he is also of the moderate wing of the party and my hold similar views to Ken. He also is a very cerebral man and believes in the rule of law, and has more insight into constitutional matters than most of the rest of the parliamentary Conservative Party (and the PLP) put together.
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
Comedy gold ! You seriously think the UK is ready for no deal .
Not only that, but he thinks the Remainers secretly know No Deal would be a triumph, and that's the real reason they are trying to avoid it!
His defence of why he does this sort of thing still doesn't stack up given how much still has to happen to such things before they become law.
His defence doesn't stack up because he doesn't automatically object to all private member bills. If you are his mate he forgets to object and lets them through...
That too. He's using the cover of a not unreasonable point to behave unreasonably.
I hope all the nutters headbangers and racists do defect to the nasty little poundshop fascist. Those of us that believe in One Nation Conservatism can have our party back. Go on, fuck off the lot of you!
He is spot on. I get the impression there are a small but growing number of Remainer politicians who are desperate to avoid a No Deal not because it would be a disaster but because it won't. I certainly think this is something that worries the EU.
Yup. The one thing the EU are absolutely terrified of, more than any other outcome, is that a couple of years down the line the UK is seen to have made a success of a clean break.
The UK will cease to exist in a few years time . Leavers voted to break up the UK and a no deal will just speed things up . It’s over for the UK , shame really but you can’t beat dole queues and blue passports as a wonderful replacement ! History books will take a dim view of those who voted to trash their own country .
Comments
So more chance for more drama there . Many presume that if MPs vote through the deal that’s the end of it .
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1093899089127882752
But, as the estimable Mr Meeks has pointed out, the moral character of a nation does matter. It is not irrelevant to the sort of people we are. The fact that people don’t care about anti-semitism (whether in Labour or elsewhere) or other xenophobia normalises it and makes it easier for far worse things to happen. As we know from our European history. And it says nothing good about us as a people.
In the end, moral character is the only thing which matters - whether about individuals or groups.
But, alas, I am sworn to secrecy.
The twin problems are that the interested parties have backed themselves into a non-fudgeable corner and the deal as it stands has zero legitimacy. If it is seen to have been rammed through at gunpoint, it will not be seen as a valid resolution. A fresh referendum will be unpopular with many, but MPs can at least justify it to their constituents on the basis "we couldn't choose so as a matter of democracy we let you choose". MPs who voted for a deal with zero legitimacy won't have even that figleaf.
As to your final point, why would you have a referendum between two options when a third option is much more popular than either? That really would be a democratic outrage.
If you accept the three imperatives that Britain must exit the EU, because of the referendum, that Britain must ensure a soft border in Ireland, because of the Good Friday Agreement, and that Britain must end free movement, because that would be supported by a large majority of the country and would be the most visible evidence that the country really had left the EU - then there's not really any future trade agreement with the EU that would be better than the backstop. I don't think we even have to make any payments to the EU budget while in the backstop.
It's no wonder the EU are so pissed off.
Still, I'll be looking in tomorrow's article at the probabilities for the four possible Brexit outcomes of May's Deal / Different Deal / No Deal / Remain. I've not written it yet so no numbers for now.
Maybe they should drink Duvel instead?
No, I think it is true. The big beverage companies supposedly spend a lot of time and money trying to replicate the water / other conditions when they move brewing to another site, but it wouldn't surprise me if at the end of the day it doesn't have the quite the same taste.
But has stopping this no confidence been enough to stop the mythical new party forming (supposedly on Valentine's Day)?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/08/biden-sherrod-brown-2020-elections-1157832
The Sky Data poll
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-irish-overwhelmingly-back-governments-pressure-on-backstop-11629673
paints picture of two Lemmings going over a cliff.
The Irish Lemming is laughing and enjoying itself “the bastard English have gone over a cliff”
Here’s to the next 598 years of neighbourliness and Christian fraternity. Cheers
PS. Dr Naked Brexit has been parading her views of brexits, hope Humphries lady guests turning up starkers don’t change his mind ref retirement 🥴
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZfh1JR-6fk
Of course half of them can't remember anything about the event
The way your mind works i know now why you are called anorak
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1093919414129430530
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
UK, Ipsos MORI poll:
CON-ECR: 38%
LAB-S&D: 38%
LDEM-ALDE 10% (+1)
UKIP-ENF: 4%
SNP-G/EFA: 4%
GREENS-G/EFA: 3% (-2)"
When this becomes clear she will look intransigent and partisan. Especially because noises off from the EU indicate that they would be delighted with this Labour BINO. Well why wouldn't they be? They are the EU. The all important Withdrawal Agreement unchanged, the Political Declaration amended for very close alignment, i.e. more compatible with the WA than it currently reads - ah bisto, as far as they are concerned.
Labour's timing is perfect too. Launching this now, into the end game, is more effective than having done it earlier. It gives May less time to adapt. It ratchets up the pressure on her. And what now are her options if at the end of the day she cannot get her deal through?
Allow a No Deal crash out when Labour had a feasible alternative? Oh dear.
Delay for a 2nd referendum? Oh dear.
Call a snap general election? Oh dear.
It's a world of pain.
Basically, terrified of a new centre party.
Although strictly speaking I suppose, Ed M is to blame for the £3 nonsense that started all this.
It’s also possible, that if for example the TM deal was passed tomorrow, the DUP would initiate and win a VoNC the following day, and after a couple of weeks we would be into an election which would mean we leave with no deal as we haven’t ratified the Treaty - and haven’t passed a whole load of mitigating legislation either - it would be a proposed crash out with a lot in limbo for potentially months...
Me neither.
But I can (and indeed I like to) imagine JRM arguing loudly and passionately for a Hard Brexit wearing THIS -
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/45/f4/3845f4d0974ac26efffc3baf28940cf0.jpg
Part of it is because there is a significant number of people in the developed world that the globalized economy is putting a lot of pressure on and leaders saying what we need is basically more of the same, as liberal global economy is the best model isn't what they want to hear.
Therefore, his well practised socialist shtick getting a hearing in a way it wouldn't 20 years ago when we were choosing between Blair and Major.
But, as you and I agree, if the deal just refuses to pass, she will try to stage a jail break via that SNAP ELECTION - which she might just win.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6909
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/i-talked-my-leave-voting-constituents-about-brexit-what-i-learnt
Though there is a gap between what she learns about her constituents' concerns and what implementing Brexit does to meet any of them.
The Mood-swinger's Guide to Brexit.
Oh dear, we have problems...